Essay Abstract

Measurability and computability of the universe show that Big Bang cosmology is in serious troubles. It is time to re-examine Big Bang cosmology and solve the troubles that the computability of the Big Bang cosmology has shown.

Author Bio

Amrit Sorli is founder of bijective research methodology. He has published around 100 articles and 10m books.

Download Essay PDF File

Stephen Hawking and J.B. Hartle published an article in 1983 entitled "Wave Function of the Universe" in the renowned journal Physical Review D. In this article, they say that the universe began from a mathematical point. In 2014, however, NASA measured the universe as infinite, taking the form of Euclidean space. The first thing we need to understand is if the universe is infinite today, it has been and will be infinite forever. Another thing is that if a thing starts from a mathematical point and spreads at any speed, it will always have a finite dimension. Something that has a finite dimension can never evolve into something that has an infinite dimension. These are basic scientific facts, no one disputes them, or yin can deny. Another proof that the Big Bang theory is wrong. Proponents of the Big Bang will say that in the first moments, the universe was expanding at infinite speed, which is mathematical philosophy, not science. The term "infinite speed" cannot be used in science because we do not know what it means. The terms "infinite distance" and "infinite volume" of the universe, however, can be used because it is based on NASA measurements.

"... Big Bang model does not fit into the mapped universe. ... It is time now for the re-examination of Big Bang cosmology." According to Famaey and McGaugh,

"Either (i) there is a vast amount of unseen mass in some novel form--dark matter-- or (ii) the data indicate a breakdown of our understanding of dynamics on the relevant scales, or (iii) both."

[link:link.springer.com/article/10.2942/irr-2012-10]Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions, Living Reviews in Relativity, volume 15, 7 September 2012[/link]

Please consider 4 questions:

(1) Does MOND have many empirical successes?

(2) How likely is it that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 ?

(3) How likely is it that dark-matter=compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 ?

(4) How likely is it that dark matter particles exist?

David your questions have nothing to do with my essay. I just pointed out BB cosmology has troubles. It is too small to fit into the existent universe.

Besides that NASA has measured the universe is infinite.

I discovered the universe does not run in time, time is just numerical order of events in the universal space which is time-invariant. Nothing ever happens in time. These are facts we have to incorporate in cosmology.Attachment #1: 3_How_many_Models_of_Time_do_we_need_in_Physics_-_personal_copy.pdfAttachment #2: Minkowski_Space-time_and_Einsteins_Now.pdf

    Consider this question: Is there a maximum wavelength in the physical universe?

    David, I'm a physicist, not a mathematical philosopher. Stick to the subject. So we can discuss it.

    An equally interesting question is: Is there a maximum frequency in the physical universe?

    The highest energy cosmic ray ever observed was around 10^20 ev.

    Your 'computer program' is assuming the Big Bang started off at a point. This assumption is probably wrong. What if the "BB" occurred when the Universe was already flat and a substantial size as a result of a 'phase change' in the primordial energy? Or maybe we should assume the "BB" started after inflation, not before. Both these scenarios do not require an infinite steady-state universe.

      Do no see the universe as a system that exists in some physical time. Time is just the numerical sequential order of events running in universal space. There is no physical time in the universe. This is what Julian Barbour calls "The Third Revolution of Physics". Universal space and cosmological principle are time-invariant. Black holes are rejuvenating systems of the universe which is eternal and non-created.

      Inflation is not falsifiable. Read articles on the inflation of Dr. Alan Guth on arxiv. He says that "gravitational energy" is negative and the energy of matter is positive and the sum of both in the universe is always zero. This model is not falsifiable and is against common logic. Read my article attached: Black holes are rejuvenating systems of the universe".

      BB cosmology has serious problems that have to be solved in order to remain the leading cosmology model. We have to push physics forward together. FQXI is the right platform for this.Attachment #1: 2_Black_Holes_are_Rejuvenating_Systems_of_the_Universe_.pdf

      Dear Amrit

      I do not agree with your next view:

      "It is time now for the re-examination of Big Bang cosmology. If the troubles willnot be solvable, we have to be open to accepting a Stationary universe without begging and without an end is a good model."

      For the one who respected real philosophers of nature, the stationary model was always the right model. It is also the result of my calculations, some of which you can see in the essay.

      Regards Branko

      Dear Branko,

      this is great, we are already two having the same view. I also think BB cosmology is not right. But you know it will take time to fix this. I could not publish my articles on BB trouble in important journals. We have to be very exact and taking into account the falsifiability of our work.

      BB cosmology is not falsifiable.

      I'm deeply thankful FQXI for giving us the possibility to present our ideas. My plan is we end BB cosmology in 2020.

      Yours Amrit

      Branko please send me the link to your essay.

      I cannot find it.

      Please send me your email.

      My mail is

      sorli.bijective.physics@gmail.com

      We can work together.

      yours amrit

      Dear Amrit

      You didn't answer my objection.

      I agree with your statement on time, which you can see from my own essay discussing presentism. I also agree that inflation theory is not falsifiable.

      However that doesn't mean I believe in a steady state universe, especially when the observational evidence indicates an expanding and accelerating universe.

      Dear Amrit

      If you order the essays alphabetically by author last name I am always on the end.

      My articles you can find here:

      https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/145

      1/Branko,%20Zivlak

      Regards Branko

      Are we in agreement on at least 2 points?

      (1) Empirical evidence shows that the Lambda-CDM model is wrong.

      (2) Someone needs to find a new concept of time in order to correct Big Bang cosmology.

      Dear Amrit,

      Thank you for a short but very clear essay that explains your position towards the Big Bang.

      I know that you are able to write books about the subject, and also I agree with you.

      You read my latest article in "Conscious Exploration & Research", in this essay I am still more clearly trying to explain "intellectual try-outs" like the BB.

      Good luck in the contest.

      Thank you for taking the time and making comment on it.

      best rgards

      Wilhelmus de Wilde

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411

      5 days later

      Dear Amrit ji,

      You caught a wonderful point in Bigbang ...."To reach the size of today's observed and mapped universe, according to the Big Bang model, the universe should expand since its beginning with the speed of 1,02тИЩ109??тИ'1 . The velocity of light is 3тИЩ108??тИ'1?. To reach today radius universe should expand with the velocity v which should be 3,34 times bigger than light speed."

      There are 100 more well publicized problems of this theory, like Dark matter, Dark energy, blue shifted Galaxies, Blackholes....... etc..... This 101th.

      Then how Bigbang is surviving?

      Just only because of UNLiMITED FUNDs availability. Scientists, Authors and researchers were not given freedom. I dont know why?....

      I am also a against Bigbang person,

      I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

      "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

      =snp.gupta

      Dear Gupta,

      BB cosmology is not "scientific theory", this is a silly idea. It is not falsifiable, it is not bijective, this is a fairy tale.

      I work that in 2020 BB cosmology will become a history of physics.

      Nothing in this model works, incredible how still they teach it at universities.

      If we will get the support of FQXI than the BB cosmology abolishing process could start. But I hardly believe in their support. At the end of this essay story, they will ignore us and give awards to other researchers. They do not dare to contradict BB cosmology. Today in science you have to follow the mainstream, otherwise, you are out of the game. The game of money and success.Attachment #1: 5_-_A_THREE-DIMENSIONAL_NON-LOCAL_QUANTUM_VACUUM_AS_THE_ORIGIN_OF_PHOTONS.pdf